Why the high standard for the Klitschkos?

Lets compare Wlad to Floyd...

Floyd has a huge appeal outside the ring, he talks shlt like a champ and knows how to pull an audience.

Wlad doesn't do this.

In the ring they are both amazing boxers, fantastic technical skills that blow away the competition.

So my question is...if you're a REAL boxing fan, not some casual fan that only watches for the shlt talk, why do you care? Wlad was one of the most offensive heavyweights ever to be seen bombing the shlt out of people in the early rounds, then he had a few losses, changed up his style, and worked his way back to the top. You can call it boring, but because of his desire to be the best he did what he had to do to get back on top.

If you watch boxing strictly for the drama and not the boxing, then maybe you should find a new hobby.

 

because Tyson was invincible first the vulnerable later, while Klits are opposite.

 

Really? Like who? What's all those amazing ultra tough mega-fights Lewis went through?

Shot old Tyson? Two terrible hug-fests with an over-the-hill Holyfield?

The truth is Lewis best win and toughest fight was slicing off a prime Vitali's face. The only fighter that went on to greater highs after being defeated by Lewis. The rest all imploded and spiralled downwards.

 

When you make statements that Wlad could beat any fighter in history, despite going down the second time in the Sanders fight without getting hit, and crawling around on the floor looking very scared, you are ensurng that there are high expectations that need to be fufilled.

Chisora does not meet this expectation. Fight Haye, Wlad. Don't be scared.

 

I ****ing hate this tired old argument. Anyone who mentions other fighters losing and, thus, draws comparisons to the Klitschko's needs to accept one thing: The guys who were soundly beaten like the Klitschko's have been, beat better opponents than them or they dominated better than the Klitschko's have.

People mention Tyson and, yeah, he should have beaten Douglas. The fact is though, that he was years past his best and proved his chin, his determination and other things earlier in his career. Lewis was knocked out, yeah, but he would later show that he had a very good chin, when going 12 with Tua and taking bombs of Vitali. Louis was outboxed but later crushed Schmeling.

Other fighters have lost in similar fashion to both Klitschko's, yes, but they either improved on their weaknesses, beat them in a rematch or they were just so dominant against other opponents, the losses don't matter.

Here's why it's different with the Klitschko's, starting with Vitali. He quit against an inferior opponent and was beaten up in a great fight against Lewis. The problem is, he's never proven he has a good heart and he's never proven that he has the ability to win a war.

As for Wlad, he's shown absolutely awful mental strength and a poor chin. Has he ever proven his chin? No. Has he ever proven he has the mental strength other champinos have had? No.

Their losses right now, are a huge deal. The only way that will change is if they convince people the losses were a blip and to do that, you need to beat great opposition or show that a weakness, such as Wlad's chin, is no longer there.

Until the Klitschko's do that, they won't be given a pass for their losses like Lewis, Tyson etc., have been.

 

What war has Tyson ever won? The sad truth is whenever somebody fought back Tyson didn't know how to handle it.

Mentally Tyson was about the weakest of the belt holdes ever. Mike was completely confused and obviously uncomfortable when Douglas started hitting him with combinations every time they broke out a clinch that Mike initiated. He didn't know how to deal with it. He was never faced with a situation that when he threw the kitchen sink at somebody's chin he still kept coming back and beat Tyson to the punch with more accurate combinations.

When an average bum like Danny Williams took a shot Mike's best shots for two rounds and suddenly started fighting back Mike once again was dumbfounded. He didn't know what to do. He couldn't handle a situation where a fighter doesn't fold in two minutes like everybody told Mike he would and then suddenly started fighting back.

Same in the Lewis fight, and some argue Tyson got lucky in the first Bruno fight after Bruno gave him a decent fight.

In fact Tyson *COULD* actually have gotten lucky in the Douglas fight when he knocked Douglas down in round 7 with that huge uppercut. But Douglas simply got up, shook it off, came back next round and stopped Tyson. People who make up this loss (and others) to Tyson being shot or lazy are completely clueless. He lost to Douglas because for the first time luck didn't save Mike's ass. This time that lucky monster single hand uppercut didn't seal the deal.

All these losses just expose Mike's mental weakness, his egg-shell character and lack of conviction. People who give Mike a pass for these losses are deluding themselves if they think Mike ever did anything in his career (e.g. comeback with more discipline, going through and winning wars, win a series of rematches, come back stronger) that warrants excusing his losses.

 

If the brothers were black, i think they would be rated highter, truth is there has only been a few good white heavyweights in the past 50 years, an guys like cooney who were over-rated to make big fights, well that stigma sticks on the brothers, i would go far to say this, this past decade an maybe the late 90's, but more so this past decade, was the best for whites in all weightclasses prior to the late 50's, now i am not a historian, but i got to believe that is close............So this is what i think is hard to believe, i honesty never thought i would see a white world weight champ back in 90's, except maybe a morrison, who was over-rated.

white hype has been going on for a while, an has made big mega money fights, but the lewis fight, vitali did not fold, he stayed in there, an i believe that is one of the reason lewis retired, he did not want to be the first black champ to lose to a white man in 30, an if you go back to rocky 40 years, the money he was offerd was not worth it. an that was 30 million.

But never doubt this, when i first saw the brothers fight, i thought damn these guys are athletic an big, these guys are the real deal....

either way i am sure once the brothers retire, we have a chance of seeing another great black heavyweight,,,but it not going to be hayes

 

I'm not saying that every fighter has to go to war before he proves himself. The fact is though, that Wlad has a huge issue with his mental strength and, honestly, I don't think Tyson did. People have this huge idea that when a puncher can't hurt his opponent and gets beaten, it's because he lost confident but I don't really think there's any mental frailty there, it just shows that the opponent was a better fighter. You mention Douglas but what mental weakness did Tyson show in the actual fight? He didn't train properly at that stage but he didn't once fold. He took a beating early on, came back and knocked Douglas down. That shows a lot of character. In the end, he was beaten by a better man on the night but Tyson proved his mental strength after the bout when he summed it up by saying "it happens".

A better example is the Holyfield fight. I think he showed a good heart in the first fight, but, like the Douglas bout, he was eventually beaten by a better man. I don't think he folded that much though, honestly. He did, however, fold against Holyfield in the rematch but by that point, he'd already proven his heart and would do so again later on in his career. He just snapped on that night and he was probably justified in doing so, considering how many headbutts he had received.

Tyson's mental weaknesses only became an issue in the latter stages of his career when his life and career was on a huge decline. It's a myth he was always mentally weak in the ring. I emphasize the "in the ring" part because he certainly wasn't strong outside of the ring, but inside it, prime Tyson was almost unflappable. Even when he fought guys who could take his punches or he was hurt or he was against someone whose only intention was to survive and make the fight scrappy, he showed good composure. You can't compare him to Wlad who has folded mentally so many times when he's been hit.

Completely different. Wlad actually looks scared at times and that's not a good thing for a heavyweight champion to have.

 

Yes, and you'll notice that the K brothers have to totally dominate their opponents, or else they are *slipping*.

The standards and expectations people have for them is very high, and almost unfair to them. They can't hardly lose a round or else they are losing it.


But even more amazing is that they hardly ever DO lose a round.:good

They DO live up to the very high standards they are held to.

They certainly don't get their due credit, no. Its not that everyone else is *that bad*, its that they are that good.

Much higher probability that these mere two guys are well above average, than it is that everyone else in the division happens to be sub par.

 

Or they just want entertaining heavyweights? Heavyweights who, when they are so much better than the opposition, they go for the kill?

What happened with Wlad and Ibragimov was a disgrace to boxing, not just the heavyweight division. The fans booed, the fans turned the station over and MSG wasn't interested in boxing for a while after. Boxing in New York and even America as a whole suffered. You can try and pretend there is some racial reasoning why the Klitschko's aren't seen as bigger stars, but the fact is, fans turn in to see brutality and violence. Nobody gives a **** about his pathetic pawing jab thing he was doing constantly. That was pathetic. Truly pathetic.

If the Klitschko's threw caution to the wind and went for the kill, they'd be bigger stars and it's as simple as that. It's not about race. Bringing race into it is absolutely pointless and cheap. There is no racist agenda.

 

Well if your a boxing fan and you watch boxing you will remember who everybody fought!

 

Exactly, stop the rubbish. Wlad and his awesome boxing career are discredited because he is white, bright and polite, but his biggest sin is not being born in America.

 

Haye's fight against Valuev was boring, yeah, but he broke his hand. Anyone expecting him, a former cruiser, to throw recklessly when he had a broken hand is deluded. And the Harrison fight was poor too, but that was largely down to Harrison.

Regardless though, Haye has had a more entertaining career than Wlad or Vitali. That's not debatable, unless you're an idiot.

And I should remind you that boxings biggest star, Manny Pacquiao, is not western. Westerners have no issue supporting non-westerners. They just need to be exciting.